Archive for July, 2007

It’s not looking good folks. Plenty of audio tools, but little in the way of video. The main problem is that most of the video applications that I’m trying aren’t working very well. So expect a very harsh review of Ubuntu Studio to come very soon.

Yesterday, while I was busy preparing to help a friend in need, an imposter entered the TruthNet Radio chat room and started saying that 9/11 Truth was out the window, or something to that effect. Take note: it wasn’t me.

Now a warning to whoever did this. Your defamation of my own character will not be tolerated. Do it again, and you will hear from an attorney.

I used to be a host on that network. There were some good moments, and bad ones to be for sure. However, it’s gone silent recently, so… I’d like to say this.

I’m stepping up to the plate!

I know I have the ability to keep the dream alive. It was that very dream that caused me to wake up and realize that certain media activists were not true activists, but pot stirrers. I remember when I first realized that Robb Revere was not my enemy. It felt surprisingly good that he thanked me for giving him a tip on New Orlean’s last blogger (during Katrina). Then in December of 2005, I get a private message on the Revere Radio forum:

“You want a show?”

I was surprised. I really was. I talked to him over the phone, and I decided I would give it a go. After all, if they really were the Worldwide Home of Free Speech, I would test them on that. Not once was I censored. Not once! I remember my buddy list on my IM increase at a rapid rate after losing what I thought were two friends, who as it turned out, were never true friends in the first place. It was a quirky network, and I was let go at the beginning of this year. I may be on TruthNet Radio now, along with Justin Breithaupt, who has one of the most brilliant minds I’ve ever encountered.

Robb Revere extended his hand to me back in 2005. Now it’s my turn.

Robb, I’m extending my hand to you. There have been some things done that I do not agree with, but the past is the past, and time heals all wounds. Give me a shot. Give me a chance to keep the dream alive. I do not wish to see Revere Radio die, because I’ve seen it’s potential first hand. It’s had quite the impact. I know that mainstream media is corrupt. I know that it’s all the media outlets run by corporations that are the problem and not just Fox. That’s why I’m here. I want to entertain, educate, and empower people from all walks of life. I know that others out there wish to do the same. Give me a chance. Let me see if I can’t run a radio network.

I remember trying out Red Hat 9 and Fedora Core. I of course distro-hop a lot, so those didn’t stay for very long, but when one is going about reviewing distributions of Operating Systems, such a thing is to be expected. I will start off by saying thanks. Thank you for making Linux a household name. There are many disagreements on the naming conventions due to the fact that GNU software is often used, but let us set that aside for the moment.

It should serve as a reminder that the Microsoft evangelists are only there to help Microsoft, not the third party developers, who are seen as pawns and nothing more. Other people, such as the Samba Team, have worked day in and day out to help with interoperability, and I’m sure they are not the only ones doing that, and all without Microsoft’s help. Interoperability should be about putting customers first, and the Redmond company is not needed for that. There are plenty of ways to have documents go back and forth. We have Thunderbird and Firefox for web and e-mail needs. OpenOffice.org has the ability to export documents directly to PDF, and with enough improvement, I’m sure an open source graphical PDF editor can be made so people can collaborate and add comments. If there are still things that are needed, the Free and Open Source Communities are more than talented in filling the gap.

Please reconsider talks with Microsoft. They will not talk about interoperability unless Intellectual Property is placed on the table, even if the claims are absurd at best. They are not interested in their customers. They are only interested in their stock price and money.

As you will see below I was using Windows Vista Ultimate
in VMWare and I needed to do a screen capture so I
opened Paint.net and it said it needed to upgrade. I did it
knowing that it may be adding DRM but oh well. After the
update it asked me to donate to the Paint.net project
using Pay Pal and “We ask for a minimum donation of
$10.00 U.S” . So if they get donations from everyone that
uses Vista or gets it on their PCs then they will have a lot
of money! They seem to want to get more money out of
the open source community. Since Microsoft wants to
sell Linux why not give away open source software with
their commercial Linux operating system? So now if
Microsoft can convert Windows Vista completely over to
Open Source and sell it then they can get us to do their
work for them. On the other side of this equation if
Microsoft is bound by GPLv3 then we as a community can
do the same thing in reverse. We can use Microsoft’s
open source software and give it away for free. So I’m
not seeing how Microsoft is going to succeed here by
trying to become Open Source? This program comes
already installed on Vista Ultimate.

That’s a question I would like to ask everyone reading this right now. The people within the Free Software Foundation are great. They’re awesome. They believe in freedom, and I can go for that. I too do not like it when other companies try to not only say that I am only leasing their software, but that I can not look at and modify the source code nor distribute the software to other people. I like sharing. I do. However, when I think Free Software, I know that others are mistakenly thinking freeware. Freeware is of course proprietary software that does not cost money, but licensing restrictions are placed onto the user.

The two can be easily confused, as well as the usual ad hominems:

It’s free?

It must not be worth it?

You get what you paid for.

It’s probably shoddy.

People are conditioned to equate the word free with “no money needed” and nothing more. What if a new term is coined that would not only explain how a person would not necessarily have to pay money for software, but also have the liberty to share it with others and view/alter the source code? Ladies and gentlemen, I propose calling Free Software….